This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

No description available.

No description available.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

No description available.

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown under drip irrigation was evaluated over a two year period for physiological and morphological responses. Three water levels representing, 103, 93 and 87% of estimated consumptive use (63.6 ha-cm) were used in Marana, AZ. in 1983. In 1984, cotton was grown under eight drip irrigation treatments corresponding to 120, 100, 80 and 60% of the estimated consumptive use (79.5 ha-cm) in Stanfield, AZ. These volumes of water were applied as small daily amounts and larger weekly amounts for a total of eight irrigation treatments. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Mean leaf area ratio (LAR), leaf area index (LAI), mean net assimilation rate (NAR), mean relative growth rate (RGR), mean crop growth rate (CGR), plant height and the number of mainstem nodes were determined using the growth analysis method. Transpiration, diffusive resistance, leaf and ambient temperatures were measured with a steady state porometer. Apparent photosynthesis (APS) was determined in 1983 with an infrared gas analyzer which measured CO(,2) concentrations. In 1983, the cotton plants from the 103% irrigation treatment had greater transpiration, lower diffusive resistance and lower APS than the 93% treatment plants. In 1984, no significant differences were observed between the seasonal transpiration rates from the eight irrigation treatments. Cotton plants grown under the 120% treatment showed superior diffusive resistance responses than those from the 60% treatment. Temperature differentials were higher in the 120% treatments than in the 60% treatments. No significant differences were found between LAR, NAR, RGR and CGR during 1983 and 1984. Even though there were no differences between the total number of flowers produced in the three treatments in 1983, the 93 and 87% treatment plants produced more seed cotton than the 103% treatment plants. In 1984, the seed cotton yield from the 60% daily treatment was significantly the lowest. Due to the problems related to the late initiation of treatments and excessive rainfall, the physiological and morphological responses of cotton were inconsistent across the various water levels in 1983. Regression analysis confirmed the erratic responses of cotton plants from the weekly treatments across the wide range of environmental conditions in 1984.